Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very sobering report just issued by our FBI--its Preliminary 2005 Uniform Crime Report. This is the gold standard of crime reports in our country, taken from statistics by more than 12,000 law enforcement agencies all across our country.

Here is what the report says: Murders are up 4.8 percent. This means that there were 16,900 victims in 2005--16,900 in a single year. This is the most murders since 1998 and the largest percentage increase in 15 years. Violent crime more generally, which also includes forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, rose 2 percent after seeing decreases over the last 3 years.

Some areas of the country were especially hard hit. The Midwest, for example, saw violent crime rise 5.7 percent. Medium-large towns--those with populations between half a million and 1 million--saw an increase in violent crime of 8.3 percent. Murders increased more than 12 percent in towns with populations between 50,000 and 250,000. These troubling increases come after more than a decade of record decreases in crime.

These historic decreases in crime happened for a reason and, I fear, the recent and dramatic increase in murders and violent crime are also happening for a reason.

Let me explain. In 1994, we passed the most sweeping anticrime bill in history. At the time, we faced a national crisis with respect to violent crime. Despite the tough-on-crime rhetoric of the 1980s, the Federal Government until that point had very little impact on crime rates. This is largely because only about 3 percent of all crimes are handled by the Federal Government.

We recognized in 1994 that the only way to seriously address crime in our communities would be to vigorously and consistently support State and local law enforcement. We made a commitment to do just that by creating the Community Oriented Policing Services Program--more commonly known as COPS.

This ambitious new program committed to put more than 100,000 new officers on the streets and to expand the concept of community-oriented policing. Crime rates went down every year for 8 consecutive years. Violent crime was reduced by 26 percent. The murder rate went down by 34 percent.

In just a few short years, Americans went from being afraid to go out on their streets to living in the safest neighborhoods in a generation. By giving State and local law enforcement the support they needed, we were able to improve the lives of millions of Americans.

I recognize there are many factors involved in whether crime rates go up and down and that the COPS Program was not the sole reason for this historic drop in violent crime. At the same time, the legacy of COPS is unmistakable. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report in October 2005 that concluded what many police chiefs and sheriffs have said all along--the COPS Program helps reduce crime. Specifically, the GAO found that ``as a demonstration of whether a federal program can affect crime rates through hiring officers and changing policing practices, the evidence indicates that COPS contributed to declines in crime above the levels of declines that would have been expected without it.'' For every $1 in COPS hiring grant expenditures per capita, there was a reduction of almost 30 index crimes per 100,000 persons.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft called the COPS Program a ``miraculous success.'' But, unfortunately, I fear that some of us have taken our eyes off the ball. Specifically, the Bush administration has forgotten the lessons we learned from the COPS Program. Despite the dramatic and historic COPS successes, President Bush has systematically eliminated the programs that helped to lay the foundation for our low crime rates.

President Bush has proposed to cut support for State and local law enforcement every year for the past 5 years, proposing a budget in 2007 that cut $2 billion in guaranteed funding for State and local law enforcement from the amount we provided only 5 years ago. President Bush has steadily tried to kill the COPS hiring program, routinely trying to zero out all hiring funding.

And Congress has not held the line. During the 1990s, roughly $1 billion per year was allocated for the COPS Program. In 2002, $385 million was allocated to hire officers. That allocation was steadily reduced until last year when, for the first time, funding to hire officers was completely eliminated. Let me repeat: No Federal COPS funding whatsoever to hire officers. Adding insult to injury, President Bush has also proposed to zero out the Byrnes Justice Assistance Grant Program.

From 1994 to 2003, this wildly popular program provided around $900 million per year to our States to improve their criminal justice systems, providing vital resources to our men and women officers. Since 2003, this number has steadily eroded, with President Bush proposing absolutely no funding in his 2007 budget request. And I fear that we are now seeing the results of this vast defunding of the COPS Program and the Byrne Program--a result that was certainly not unpredictable.

Earlier this year, in response to the President's latest budget request, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mary Ann Viverette, stated: ``these cuts have the potential to cripple the capabilities of law enforcement agencies nationwide and will undoubtedly force many departments to take officers off the streets, leading to more crime and violence in our hometowns and ultimately less security for our homeland.''

Many of us in Congress have also tried to raise the warning flags repeatedly. This February, I released a report entitled, ``Abandoning the Front Line: The Bush Administration's Record of Support for State and Local Law Enforcement'' which warned that we need to keep our eye on the ball, otherwise we risk seeing dramatic increases in crime rates.

Another problem facing our local law enforcement agencies is the fact that the FBI is getting out of the crime business. Since 9/11, the number of FBI agents focusing on crime has gone

down by over 1,000 agents. As a result, drug investigations have dropped by 60 percent and violent crime investigations have been reduced by 40 percent.

This has created a perfect storm for law enforcement, and I hope that these latest dramatic and troubling crime statistics serve as a wake-up call to Congress and the President.

We must build on the successes of the past; we must never become complacent. When I speak to law enforcement groups on the subject of crime, I make the point that keeping crime rates low is like cutting the grass. You mow your lawn and it looks great. You let it grow for a week, and it starts looking ragged. You let it grow for a month and you have a jungle.

The preliminary numbers released yesterday show that we have not been cutting the grass. In Cleveland, from 1994 to 2001, we spent $3.2 million per year for COPS hiring. From 2002 to 2005, we only spent $875,500 per year. A 2004 news article noted that Cleveland lost 250 officers, a reduction of 15 percent in their force. In their latest crime numbers, murder is up 38 percent; violent crime is up 7 percent. In St. Louis, from 1994 to 2001, we spend $770,000 per year for COPS hiring. From 2002 to 2005, that number was zero. A 2003 study found that St. Louis had lost 168 officers, a reduction of 11 percent in their force. In their latest crime numbers murder is up 16 percent, violent crime up 20 percent. The pattern is, unfortunately, clear.

In Philadelphia from 1994 to 2001, we spent $5,250,000 per year for COPS hiring. From 2002 to 2995, that number was again zero, Last year, I asked the Philadelphia police chief about the number of officers they have lost recently. He said since 2003, they were down 600 officers. In Philadelphia's latest crime numbers, murder is up 14.2 percent, violent crime up 3.4 percent.

Now is the time to see the error in our recent ways. It is my hope that the Appropriations, Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee will see fit to fully fund the COPS Program, the Justice assistance grants, and other critical crime control programs when it reports out its appropriations bill later this summer. If they do not, I will be offering an amendment to restore full funding for the COPS Program. I have done this for the past several years.

The Senate has previously not adopted my amendments, however--with opponents arguing that the COPS Program has worked, so we should kill it, or that it is not a Federal responsibility to fund local law enforcement. Critics will also argue that adding funding to the COPS Program will bust the budget.

I believe that the safety of the American citizens is our No. 1 priority, and I cannot accept the argument that we cannot find funding for local law enforcement at the same time we are giving a tax cut to our nation's millionaires. They did not ask for this tax cut, and I know that they would be willing to give that back in order to keep their communities safer.

The COPS Program helps us prevent both crime and terrorism, and I hope my colleagues will support me in restoring funding for this critical program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes: one is to speak against the Santorum amendment relating to Iran--the Iran sanctions--and, two, to offer an amendment relating to the negotiations that are now underway by the President of the United States.

Let's cut right to it, if I may. Are we going to stand aside while the President of the United States of America is trying to stop the development of a nuclear bomb in Iran? The President of the United States of America has made a judgment--I would argue, finally, but he has made a judgment--that the best way to keep the worst thing from happening is to cooperate with our friends to put pressure on the bad guy.

What do I mean by that? The President of the United States, I assume at the urging of the Secretary of State--although it is not relevant, actually--the President of the United States took a more aggressive course about a month ago in attempting to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon, a weapon that, if developed in conjunction with a missile, could change, in a material way, the dynamics in the Middle East and particularly relating to our interests, notwithstanding the fact that it might not be able to strike the United States--a development that if it occurred would almost assuredly put great pressure on the Sunni Arabs in the region, who have lots of money, to join with possibly Egypt or another country to develop a Sunni bomb. This is not a good thing.

So the President, in conjunction with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, our three largest European allies, along with China, and Russia, has agreed to and has been sitting down and making a specific proposal, which the President of the United States has pledged the United States to, in order to both entice as well as dissuade the Iranians from pursuing their course. There are two pieces to it. One, it says to the Iranians: If you cooperate and verifiably cease and desist, we, the United States, the three European countries, China, and Russia, will move forward with the following incentives to move you closer to the family of nations as a responsible nation. And there are a set of very specific incentives that the President of the United States of America has signed on to--quote, an ``offer,'' if you will, to the Iranian Government.

It also says, as was reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post today, that the Chinese, as well as the Americans and Russians, have communicated a second piece of information to the Iranians: If you do not cease and desist, these bad things are going to happen to you, and we are all jointly--jointly--going to impose them on you.

I think that was a stroke of significant diplomacy on the part of the President, which basically, as I understand it, the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese said: Will you join us in some of the carrots? And the President, as I understand it, said: Yes, if you join me in the strikes. It is carrots and sticks.

I know of no way to avoid one of two alternatives: one is the resignation to the acceptance of an Iranian weapon, and relying upon deterrence; or, two, the use of military force against Iran to prevent the development of that weapon.

My friend from Pennsylvania, as well as all of us on this floor, have received, I expect, the same extensive briefings I have on just how limited those alternatives are at this point militarily.

So I think the President has chosen a very reasonable course here. But even if you disagree with it, one of the things that--and I have been here during seven Presidents, and I have been very critical of this President's foreign policy--but the idea, in the midst of a negotiation, at the point at which the world is expecting and waiting and wondering what Iran's response will be, that the U.S. Senate would go on record as tying the President's hands in this negotiation--I find that amazing, absolutely amazing.

I spoke this morning with the Secretary of State who authorized me to say, unequivocally, the administration opposes this amendment. It limits their flexibility in doing what we all want: preventing the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran. How much clearer can the administration be? And as my Grandfather Finnegan from my home State of Pennsylvania used to say: Who died and left you boss? Since when do we negotiate for a President? We are in the midst of a negotiation. The only thing we have going for us now, with China, Russia, and Europe all siding with us, we are about to mess up? Folks, I think this is such a tragic mistake--well-intended but tragic. The underlying amendment, Mr. Santorum's amendment, in my view, and in the view of the Secretary of State, actually advocates a policy that would jeopardize President Bush's initiative and, I believe, play directly into the hands of Iranian hard-liners.

I think if you read the language, it also has the potential to damage relations with some of the key countries whose cooperation we need to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. If this approach were adopted, we would be in the untenable position of sanctioning companies located in countries that we are asking to impose sanctions on Iran if they fail to accept the offer put forward by Russia, China, Europe, and the United States.

It does not, with all due respect to my friend, because I have joined him in Iran sanctions legislation in the past--I have joined him--but this is a different amendment and it is a fundamentally different time.

I remember going down to see the President when he was making his first trip to Europe. He asked whether I would come down and speak with him and his staff and I did. It was very gracious of him to ask my opinion, which was very nice of him. He said he was going to Germany. And he said--I am paraphrasing--I understand you have been asked to speak to the Bundestag, the German Parliament.

I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President.

He said: I understand you have turned it down.

I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President.

He said: Why?

I said: Mr. President, we only have one President. You are my President. My disagreements with you on foreign policy--at that time it related to the Balkans and some other things--I think it is totally inappropriate, while you are in Europe, while you are in discussions with the very people who invited me to speak, for me to go and publicly afront you in a foreign capital before their--their--Parliament, the very Parliament you are going to be speaking to. I am not President. You are our President. And he pressed: Well, why?

And I said, somewhat facetiously--and I have had this discussion with Newt--I am not Newt Gingrich. I don't go to the Middle East and speak to Middle Eastern Parliaments while the previous Secretary of State is there negotiating. I think it is inappropriate.

The President of the United States is in the midst of the most important negotiations, absent Korea--and not much is going on there-- that we have had since he has been President. And even if everything in here makes sense, why would we now do this?

My plea to my friend from Pennsylvania is: Withhold this amendment. See what happens in the negotiations. If, in fact, they fail--as they have an overwhelming prospect that could happen--then come back to the Senate and the Congress to put on these restrictions.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time the Senator from Delaware has remaining?

I say to my friend from Pennsylvania--I have not had a chance to speak to him personally--I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I have an amendment.

Mr. President, have I sent my amendment to the desk? Is the Biden amendment at the desk?

Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, what my amendment does is speak to and support the President's present negotiation. It gives full support to the President of the United States, because if there was ever a time the President should have the world know the Nation stands behind him, it is now. It is now in this negotiation. I don't have time to read the amendment, but I promise you, it is a rendition of the administration's position on negotiations and compliments him for it and says we support him.

Although Senator Hagel is in a hearing and on his way, there will probably not be much time for him to speak. But he is a cosponsor, along with Senators Levin and Dodd. I am sure there are others, and I ask unanimous consent that they be able to be added later.

Mr. President, I also want to point out that the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, if I am not mistaken, yesterday raised significant concerns with the Santorum amendment as well. As I look at the Record, they all are pertinent and accurate.

I will conclude by saying, this is no time to be meddling in the midst of a negotiation on one of the most important issues facing the United States, when the President has newly initiated a specific proposal. I urge my friend from Pennsylvania to withhold his amendment until we see what turns out there. If he thinks it is necessary after the negotiations succeed or fail, then come back.

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for allowing me to probably run over a minute or so.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4234

Will the manager yield me time to speak to my amendment?

Mr. President, our amendment merely states that we support the President's efforts, in a nutshell. I only have a minute. We support the President's efforts in negotiations with our European allies, the Russians, and Chinese to both offer incentives and sanctions to Iran regarding its proceeding with construction of a nuclear weapon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend Police Chief Michael Capriglione of the town of Newport, DE. Chief Capriglione has been recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with a Public Service Award for his outstanding dedication to the fight against drunken driving in the State of Delaware.

Chief Capriglione was nominated for this award by the mid-Atlantic office of the NHTSA, which began the Checkpoint Strikeforce Campaign in Delaware in 2001. The Checkpoint Strikeforce Campaign is an initiative that works to decrease the number of impaired driving crashes through increased police presence on the roads and statewide sobriety checkpoints on weekends and during holidays. The campaign has continued to grow since its inception, with increasing numbers of affiliated police agencies and officers joining the program each year. In 2003, county teams were created to pool resources and enhance the efficiency of the campaign in each of Delaware's three counties. Chief Capriglione was named the head of the New Castle County DUI Task Force and has served as the primary law enforcement advocate for the Checkpoint Strikeforce Campaign in Delaware.

The campaign had been highly successful; an increasing number of DUI arrests are made each year, with 685 intoxicated drivers arrested between July and December 2005 alone. This results in safer roads for our citizens to travel: 2004 saw the lowest number of alcohol-related highway deaths ever recorded in the State. The campaign has also expanded from its original half-year scope to become a year-round initiative. Under Chief Capriglione's leadership, the New Castle County DUI Task Force has established checkpoints during major holidays and other events typically associated with higher rates of impaired driving, including Super Bowl Sunday and St. Patrick's Day. During the recent Cinco de Mayo holiday, the county teams conducted checkpoints that resulted in 19 DUI arrests, as well as 7 drug arrests, 8 felony arrests, and the apprehension of 3 wanted individuals.

Chief Michael Capriglione has been instrumental in the development and success of the Checkpoint Strikeforce Campaign in Delaware. Through his exceptional leadership and commitment to public service, Delaware's roadways have become safer and its citizens more secure. He is the embodiment of public service and deserves all of the recognition he has received for his remarkable efforts, and more. We are fortunate to have committed, effective law enforcement professionals such as Chief Capriglione working to combat the problem of drunken driving throughout Delaware and the Nation, and I ask the Senate to join me in thanking Chief Capriglione for his dedicated service.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans' Day, corresponding this year to November 5-11, 2006, be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week''. This marks the seventh year in a row that I have introduced such a resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on all previous occasions.

The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. This goal takes on particular importance and immediacy this year as we find ourselves again with uniformed men and women in harm's way in foreign lands.

Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our Armed Forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current armed forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 15 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was in place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining.

The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. Even though the Iraqi war has been prominently discussed on television and in the newspapers, many of our children are much more preoccupied with the usual concerns of young people than with keeping up with the events of the day. As a consequence, many of our youth still have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations.

This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the armed forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces, and to its critical role throughout our history, can make decisions regarding our military involvement that may have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the Armed Forces and even throughout the population at large.

The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contributions of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf.

The importance of this issue was brought home to me several years ago by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, Delaware. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans''? Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for a department store sale, and we don't want to become a nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower.

National Veterans Awareness Week complements Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week also presents an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty.

Last year, my resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Responding to that resolution, President Bush issued a proclamation urging our citizenry to observe National Veterans Awareness Week. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our children's children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 20, 2006, as ``National Mammography Day.'' I might note that I have submitted a similar resolution each year since 1993, and on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution.

Each year, as I prepare to introduce this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2006, it is estimated that nearly 213,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and nearly 41,000 women will die of this disease.

In past years, I have often commented on how gloomy these statistics were. But as I review how these numbers are changing over time, I have come to the realization that it is really more appropriate to be optimistic. The trend over time is that the number of deaths from breast cancer is actually stable or falling from year to year. Early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 97 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Just last year, the headline on the front page of the Washington Post trumpeted a major improvement in survival of patients with early breast cancer following use of modern treatment regimens involving chemotherapy and hormone therapy. This year, we learned that newer anti-estrogen drugs are effective in preventing breast cancer in high-risk women. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. So I am feeling quite positive about our battle against breast cancer. A diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, and I encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer nearly daily.

In recent times, the newspapers have been filled with discussion over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. It seems that much of this controversy relates to new interpretations of old studies, and the relatively few recent studies of this matter have not clarified this issue. Most sources seem to agree that all of the existing scientific studies have some weaknesses, but it is far from clear whether the very large and truly unambiguous study needed to settle this matter definitively can ever be done.

So what is a woman to do? I do not claim any expertise in this highly technical area, so I rely on the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography, and I endorse the statements of these distinguished bodies.

On the other hand, I recognize that some women who examine these research studies are unconvinced of the need for periodic screening mammography. However, even those scientists who do not support periodic mammography for all women believe that it is appropriate for some groups of women with particular risk factors. In agreement with these experts, I encourage all women who have doubts about the usefulness of screening mammography in general to discuss with their individual physicians whether this test is appropriate in their specific situations.

So my message to women is: have a periodic mammogram, or at the very least discuss this option with your own physician.

I know that some women don't have annual mammograms because of either fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some women to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what they will find. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable.

Then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where National Mammography Day comes in. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible.

And to those women who are reluctant to have a mammogram, I say let National Mammography Day serve as a reminder to discuss this question each year with your physician. New scientific studies that are published and new mammography techniques that are developed may affect your decision on this matter from one year to the next. I encourage you to keep an open mind and not to feel that a decision at one point in time commits you irrevocably to a particular course of action for the indefinite future.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 20, 2006, as ``National Mammography Day.''

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. Unfortunately, this bill has been mischaracterized and therefore misunderstood by many.

Sponsored by Senator Daniel K. Akaka and Senator Daniel K. Inouye, the bill brings into focus the unique political and legal relationship that the indigenous peoples of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians, have with the United States. The United States has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives since Hawaii became a territory in 1898. All that this legislation does--with the substitute amendment that addresses some concerns raised by the Departments of Justice and Interior--is extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians, thereby providing parity in Federal policies toward American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

More than 160 statutes have been passed by Congress recognizing the political and legal relationship that Native Hawaiians have with the United States. These statutes demonstrate how Congress has repeatedly acknowledged the legal and political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Just as it has done with the other indigenous people of this country, the Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, Congress has established Federal programs to address the health, education, and housing needs of Native Hawaiians. As an indigenous people that exercised sovereignty over lands now comprising the State of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians are seeking parity with other federally recognized indigenous peoples. S. 147 is the vehicle for which this can be achieved.

Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress and continuing in the records of discussion and correspondence amongst the framers of the Constitution, it was recognized that the aboriginal, indigenous people who occupied the lands now comprising the United States had a status as sovereigns that existed prior to the formation of the United States. Based upon the recognition of that preexisting sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution--article I, section 8, clause 3--vests the Congress with authority to regulate commerce with the three classes of sovereign governments identified there--foreign nations, the several States, and Indian tribes.

In numerous rulings over the ensuing 215 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislation enacted to address the conditions of the native people of the United States is constitutional and does not constitute discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity because the sovereign status of the Indian tribes is the basis for the government-to-government relationship the tribes have with the United States.

The Court has thus consistently drawn a distinction between legislation that addresses the conditions of the native people of the United States on the grounds that the United States has a political and legal relationship with the Indian tribes--a relationship that is not predicated on race or ethnicity but rather on sovereignty--and legislation that addresses the conditions of specific groups whose members are defined only by reference to their race or ethnicity-- African Americans, Hispanic Americans, etc.

The status that the Constitution recognizes in Indian tribes was later extended to Alaska Natives in their capacity as aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States, and it is on the same basis that the Congress has enacted legislation for the aboriginal, indigenous people of Hawaii.

Many opponents of the bill are attacking and classifying reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiians as race-based. However, anyone who has a clear understanding of Hawaii's history cannot deny that Native Hawaiians are Hawaii's indigenous peoples, nor can they deny that Native Hawaiians have a legal and political relationship with the United States based on their status as Hawaii's indigenous peoples. It is offensive that laws intended to seek justice and equality for African Americans are now being used to oppress native peoples.

We must be fair and thorough while deliberating the merits of this legislation. It is unfair to pick and choose what aspects of the Constitution and related statutes do and do not apply. This is an opportunity that each Member of this Chamber has to demonstrate their commitment to recognizing and respecting the aboriginal, indigenous people that had a status as sovereigns that existed prior to the formation of the United States. The time to recognize Native Hawaiians and their contributions to our country is now. I urge my colleagues to support efforts of the Senators from Hawaii to secure Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Mary Copper, who passed away February 22, at the age of 55 in Wilmington, DE. A mother, wife, sister, activist, trailblazer, and trusted friend, Mary will be missed by the countless people whose lives she touched before her time on this Earth was cut short.

Mary graduated from Wellesley College and the Boston University School of Law, and almost immediately began a rapid ascent that took her to the pinnacle of the legal field. Through her hard work and keen instincts, she quickly made herself known across Delaware as one of the hardest working and brightest female attorneys in the State's history. She dedicated 8 years to the DuPont Company before becoming the first female partner at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, where she was beloved by clients and coworkers alike.

But perhaps the most indelible image of Mary is that of a philanthropist with an enormous heart. She never shied away from the opportunity to help others, and devoted countless hours to numerous charitable organizations throughout the State, volunteering, serving on boards, and giving every ounce of her being to the people who needed it the most.

She was a founding member and past chair of the Advisory Committee of the Fund for Women of the Delaware Community Foundation. She also served as an enthusiastic member of the Delaware Bar Foundation and a helpful supporter of the Democratic Party within Delaware. Her absence will be sorely felt by all who knew her, but the vast reach of her acts of charity and kindness will continue to touch people's lives for years to come.

My thoughts and prayers are with Mary's family, her husband William, and daughters Mary (Lucy) and Ellen.

Mr. President, I had the honor of serving with Lloyd Bentsen for 20 years, and I respected him as a Senator's Senator. He had a style about him. He was this really classy Texas gentleman who, when he walked into this Chamber or into a hearing room, you could just feel his presence and his desire to work something out.

I admired him because he used the power of that office to help millions and millions of Americans, especially the people he felt needed it most, the very young and very old among us.

Everyone in America who has an IRA and is saving for retirement can thank Lloyd Bentsen. Every American worker whose pensions are protected, is because of Lloyd Bentsen. He improved access to health care for needy women and children--not with some massive sweeping bill that would never have passed Congress but, incrementally, every year, giving a new benefit so more and more people were helped.

When he went to Treasury, he was the architect of President Clinton's economic plan that eventually balanced the budget and created millions of jobs and brought credibility and leadership back to this country with other industrialized nations.

I express my sympathy to his family, and especially his wonderful wife B.A. He liked to call her his best asset, but she was an asset to all of us. Our prayers are with her.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would completely eliminate a known security risk to millions of Americans across the United States by facilitating the transfer to safer technologies from deadly toxic chemicals at our Nation's water treatment facilities.

Across our Nation, there are thousands of water treatment facilities that utilize gaseous toxic chemicals to treat drinking and wastewater. Approximately 2,850 facilities are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act because they store large, quantities of these dangerous chemicals. In fact, 98 of these facilities threaten over 100,000 citizens. For example, the Fiveash Water Treatment Plant in Fort Lauderdale, FL threatens 1,526,000 citizens. The Bachman Water Treatment in Dallas, TX threatens up to 2,000,000 citizens. And there are similar examples in communities throughout the Nation. If these facilities--and the 95 other facilities that threaten over 100,000 citizens--switched from the use of toxic chemicals to safer technologies that are widely used within the industry we could completely eliminate a known threat to nearly 50 million Americans.

Many facilities have already made the prudent decision to switch without intervention by government. The Middlesex County Utilities Authority in Sayreville, NJ, switched to safer technologies and eliminated the risk to 10.7 million people. The Nottingham Water Treatment Plant in Cleveland, OH switched and eliminated the risk to 1.1 million citizens. The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant switched and eliminated the risk to 1.7 million people. In my hometown of Wilmington, DE, the Wilmington Water Pollution Control Facility switched from using chlorine gas to liquid bleach. This commendable decision has eliminated the risk to 560,000 citizens, including the entire city of Wilmington. In fact, this facility no longer has to submit risk management plans to the Environmental Protection Agencies required by the Clean Air Act because the threat has been completely eliminated. There are many other examples of facilities that have done the right thing and eliminated the use of these dangerous, gaseous chemicals.

The bottom line is that if we can eliminate a known-risk, we should. The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. It will require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to do a few simple things. First, water facilities will be prioritized based upon the risk that they pose to citizens and critical infrastructure. These facilities--beginning with the most dangerous ones--will be required to submit a report on the feasibility of utilizing safer technologies and the anticipated costs to transition. If grant funding is available, the Administrator will issue a grant and order the facility to transition to the safer technology chosen by the owner of the facility. I believe that this approach will allow us to use federal funds responsibly while reducing risk to our citizens.

Once the transition is complete, the facility will be required to track all cost-savings related to the switch, such as decreased security costs, costs savings by eliminating administrative requirements under the EPA risk management plan, lower insurance premiums, and others. If savings are ultimately realized by the facility, it will be required to return one half of these saving, not to exceed the grant amount, back to the EPA. In turn, the EPA will utilize any returned savings to help facilitate the transition of more water facilities.

A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office found that providing grants to assist water facilities to transition to safer technologies was an appropriate use of federal funds. The costs for an individual facility to transition will vary, but the cost is very cheap when you consider the security benefit. For example, the Wilmington facility invested approximately $160,000 to transition and eliminated the risk to nearly 600,000 people. Similarly, the Blue Plains facility spent $500,000 to transition after 9/11 and eliminated the risk to 1.2 million citizens immediately. This, in my view, is a sound use of funds. And, this legislation will provide sufficient funding to transition all of our high-priority facilities throughout the Nation.

Finally, I would like to point out that facilities making the decision to transition after 9/11, but before the enactment date of this legislation will be eligible to participate in the program authorized by this legislation. I've included this provision because I believe that the federal government should acknowledge--and promote-- local decisions that enhance our homeland security. In addition we don't want to create a situation where water facilities wait for Federal funding before doing the right thing and eliminating those dangerous gaseous chemicals.

Last December the 9/11 Discourse Project released its report card for the administration and Congress on efforts to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It was replete with D's and F's demonstrating that we have been going in the wrong direction with respect to homeland security. One of the most troubling findings made by the 9/11 Commission is that with respect to our Nation's critical infrastructure that ``no risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on allocations of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year away. It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually get some.'' While much remains to be done, the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006 sets an important priority for our homeland security and it affirmatively addresses it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would completely eliminate a known security risk to millions of Americans across the United States by facilitating the transfer to safer technologies from deadly toxic chemicals at our Nation's water treatment facilities.

Across our Nation, there are thousands of water treatment facilities that utilize gaseous toxic chemicals to treat drinking and wastewater. Approximately 2,850 facilities are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act because they store large, quantities of these dangerous chemicals. In fact, 98 of these facilities threaten over 100,000 citizens. For example, the Fiveash Water Treatment Plant in Fort Lauderdale, FL threatens 1,526,000 citizens. The Bachman Water Treatment in Dallas, TX threatens up to 2,000,000 citizens. And there are similar examples in communities throughout the Nation. If these facilities--and the 95 other facilities that threaten over 100,000 citizens--switched from the use of toxic chemicals to safer technologies that are widely used within the industry we could completely eliminate a known threat to nearly 50 million Americans.

Many facilities have already made the prudent decision to switch without intervention by government. The Middlesex County Utilities Authority in Sayreville, NJ, switched to safer technologies and eliminated the risk to 10.7 million people. The Nottingham Water Treatment Plant in Cleveland, OH switched and eliminated the risk to 1.1 million citizens. The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant switched and eliminated the risk to 1.7 million people. In my hometown of Wilmington, DE, the Wilmington Water Pollution Control Facility switched from using chlorine gas to liquid bleach. This commendable decision has eliminated the risk to 560,000 citizens, including the entire city of Wilmington. In fact, this facility no longer has to submit risk management plans to the Environmental Protection Agencies required by the Clean Air Act because the threat has been completely eliminated. There are many other examples of facilities that have done the right thing and eliminated the use of these dangerous, gaseous chemicals.

The bottom line is that if we can eliminate a known-risk, we should. The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. It will require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to do a few simple things. First, water facilities will be prioritized based upon the risk that they pose to citizens and critical infrastructure. These facilities--beginning with the most dangerous ones--will be required to submit a report on the feasibility of utilizing safer technologies and the anticipated costs to transition. If grant funding is available, the Administrator will issue a grant and order the facility to transition to the safer technology chosen by the owner of the facility. I believe that this approach will allow us to use federal funds responsibly while reducing risk to our citizens.

Once the transition is complete, the facility will be required to track all cost-savings related to the switch, such as decreased security costs, costs savings by eliminating administrative requirements under the EPA risk management plan, lower insurance premiums, and others. If savings are ultimately realized by the facility, it will be required to return one half of these saving, not to exceed the grant amount, back to the EPA. In turn, the EPA will utilize any returned savings to help facilitate the transition of more water facilities.

A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office found that providing grants to assist water facilities to transition to safer technologies was an appropriate use of federal funds. The costs for an individual facility to transition will vary, but the cost is very cheap when you consider the security benefit. For example, the Wilmington facility invested approximately $160,000 to transition and eliminated the risk to nearly 600,000 people. Similarly, the Blue Plains facility spent $500,000 to transition after 9/11 and eliminated the risk to 1.2 million citizens immediately. This, in my view, is a sound use of funds. And, this legislation will provide sufficient funding to transition all of our high-priority facilities throughout the Nation.

Finally, I would like to point out that facilities making the decision to transition after 9/11, but before the enactment date of this legislation will be eligible to participate in the program authorized by this legislation. I've included this provision because I believe that the federal government should acknowledge--and promote-- local decisions that enhance our homeland security. In addition we don't want to create a situation where water facilities wait for Federal funding before doing the right thing and eliminating those dangerous gaseous chemicals.

Last December the 9/11 Discourse Project released its report card for the administration and Congress on efforts to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It was replete with D's and F's demonstrating that we have been going in the wrong direction with respect to homeland security. One of the most troubling findings made by the 9/11 Commission is that with respect to our Nation's critical infrastructure that ``no risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on allocations of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year away. It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually get some.'' While much remains to be done, the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006 sets an important priority for our homeland security and it affirmatively addresses it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a simple bill that would give military dependents and retirees the same choices for colon cancer screening that every Medicare beneficiary and every Federal employee enjoys. This legislation requires Tricare to abandon its overly restrictive and outdated policy of limiting coverage of screening colonoscopy to a small group of high-risk individuals. By contrast, for several years both Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have paid for screening colonoscopy to detect cancer in average-risk people, and my bill simply applies this same standard to the Tricare program.

Why is this bill so important? Colon cancer is highly curable when detected and treated early but extremely lethal when it reaches an advanced stage. Early detection and prompt treatment are the keys to surviving colon cancer. Among those whose colon cancer has been cured by modern diagnostic and treatment methods are President Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and our colleague Senator Burns, to name just a few.

Why is access to colonoscopy so critical? At present, gastroenterologists overwhelmingly recommend colonoscopy as the preferred method to use for screening of colon cancer in average risk individuals over 50. Colonoscopy is more sensitive than other methods of screening in detecting colonic neoplasia, pre-cancerous changes or full-blown cancers, at an early stage; colonoscopy is more reliable in finding colonic neoplasia in the upper \2/3\ of the colon; and colonoscopy permits biopsy and removal of abnormal tissue as soon as it is discovered, in a single procedure. In fact, medical specialists refer to colonoscopy as the ``gold standard'' for colon cancer screening.

Since, 2001, the Medicare Program has permitted the use of colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer in ``average risk'' individuals, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has used the same criteria since 2003. But the Tricare medical program for military beneficiaries clings to an outmoded policy that authorizes screening colonoscopy to detect colon cancer only for only a very narrowly defined group of ``high risk'' people, not the much broader group of ``average risk'' individuals covered by the Medicare and FEHBP programs. By failing to keep up with modern medical practice, as well as with other federal health programs, Tricare seems to be inappropriately restricting access to a potentially lifesaving tool for early cancer detection. The resulting unnecessary delay in detection of colon cancer puts our military community at needless risk.

To remedy this situation, my bill requires the Tricare program to use the same criteria as the Medicare program in paying for screening colonoscopy. My bill does not mandate that screening colonoscopy be used for colon cancer detection in Tricare beneficiaries; that decision is left to Tricare patients and their doctors. Rather, this legislation simply affords Tricare participants the same options that Federal employees and Medicare beneficiaries have enjoyed for some time.

Frankly, I see no logical reason why those who have served our country in uniform for over 20 years, and the family members of those currently on active duty, should not have access to the same high- quality medical choices offered to our senior citizens and to our Federal workers. The policy on colon cancer screening that has worked well for 42 million Medicare beneficiaries and 9 million FEHBP participants, a policy that is endorsed by most medical specialists, seems totally appropriate for the Tricare population. It is time to bring the Tricare program's colon cancer screening criteria into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a simple bill that would give military dependents and retirees the same choices for colon cancer screening that every Medicare beneficiary and every Federal employee enjoys. This legislation requires Tricare to abandon its overly restrictive and outdated policy of limiting coverage of screening colonoscopy to a small group of high-risk individuals. By contrast, for several years both Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have paid for screening colonoscopy to detect cancer in average-risk people, and my bill simply applies this same standard to the Tricare program.

Why is this bill so important? Colon cancer is highly curable when detected and treated early but extremely lethal when it reaches an advanced stage. Early detection and prompt treatment are the keys to surviving colon cancer. Among those whose colon cancer has been cured by modern diagnostic and treatment methods are President Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and our colleague Senator Burns, to name just a few.

Why is access to colonoscopy so critical? At present, gastroenterologists overwhelmingly recommend colonoscopy as the preferred method to use for screening of colon cancer in average risk individuals over 50. Colonoscopy is more sensitive than other methods of screening in detecting colonic neoplasia, pre-cancerous changes or full-blown cancers, at an early stage; colonoscopy is more reliable in finding colonic neoplasia in the upper \2/3\ of the colon; and colonoscopy permits biopsy and removal of abnormal tissue as soon as it is discovered, in a single procedure. In fact, medical specialists refer to colonoscopy as the ``gold standard'' for colon cancer screening.

Since, 2001, the Medicare Program has permitted the use of colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer in ``average risk'' individuals, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has used the same criteria since 2003. But the Tricare medical program for military beneficiaries clings to an outmoded policy that authorizes screening colonoscopy to detect colon cancer only for only a very narrowly defined group of ``high risk'' people, not the much broader group of ``average risk'' individuals covered by the Medicare and FEHBP programs. By failing to keep up with modern medical practice, as well as with other federal health programs, Tricare seems to be inappropriately restricting access to a potentially lifesaving tool for early cancer detection. The resulting unnecessary delay in detection of colon cancer puts our military community at needless risk.

To remedy this situation, my bill requires the Tricare program to use the same criteria as the Medicare program in paying for screening colonoscopy. My bill does not mandate that screening colonoscopy be used for colon cancer detection in Tricare beneficiaries; that decision is left to Tricare patients and their doctors. Rather, this legislation simply affords Tricare participants the same options that Federal employees and Medicare beneficiaries have enjoyed for some time.

Frankly, I see no logical reason why those who have served our country in uniform for over 20 years, and the family members of those currently on active duty, should not have access to the same high- quality medical choices offered to our senior citizens and to our Federal workers. The policy on colon cancer screening that has worked well for 42 million Medicare beneficiaries and 9 million FEHBP participants, a policy that is endorsed by most medical specialists, seems totally appropriate for the Tricare population. It is time to bring the Tricare program's colon cancer screening criteria into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would completely eliminate a known security risk to millions of Americans across the United States by facilitating the transfer to safer technologies from deadly toxic chemicals at our Nation's water treatment facilities.

Across our Nation, there are thousands of water treatment facilities that utilize gaseous toxic chemicals to treat drinking and wastewater. Approximately 2,850 facilities are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act because they store large quantities of these dangerous chemicals. In fact, 98 of these facilities threaten over 100,000 citizens. For example, the Fiveash Water Treatment Plant in Fort Lauderdale, FL, threatens 1,526,000 citizens. The Bachman Water Treatment in Dallas, TX, threatens up to 2 million citizens. And there are similar examples in communities throughout the Nation. If these facilities--and the 95 other facilities that threaten over 100,000 citizens--switched from the use of toxic chemicals to safer technologies that are widely used within the industry we could completely eliminate a known threat to nearly 50 million Americans.

Many facilities have already made the prudent decision to switch without intervention by the government. The Middlesex County Utilities Authority in Sayreville, NJ, switched to safer technologies and eliminated the risk to 10.7 million people. The Nottingham Water Treatment Plant in Cleveland, OH, switched and eliminated the risk to 1.1 million citizens. The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant switched and eliminated the risk to 1.7 million people. In my hometown of Wilmington, DE, the Wilmington Water Pollution Control Facility switched from using chlorine gas to liquid bleach. This commendable decision has eliminated the risk to 560,000 citizens, including the entire city of Wilmington. In fact, this facility no longer has to submit risk management plans to the Environmental Protection Agency required by the Clean Air Act because the threat has been completely eliminated. There are many other examples of facilities that have done the right thing and eliminated the use of these dangerous, gaseous chemicals.

The bottom line is that if we can eliminate a known risk, we should. The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. It will require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to do a few simple things. First, water facilities will be prioritized based upon the risk that they pose to citizens and critical infrastructure. These facilities--beginning with the most dangerous ones--will be required to submit a report on the feasibility of utilizing safer technologies and the anticipated costs to transition. If grant funding is available, the Administrator will issue a grant and order the facility to transition to the safer technology chosen by the owner of the facility. I believe that this approach will allow us to use Federal funds responsibly while reducing risk to our citizens.

Once the transition is complete, the facility will be required to track all cost-savings related to the switch, such as decreased security costs, costs saving by eliminating administrative requirements under the EPA risk management plan, lower insurance premiums, and others. If savings are ultimately realized by the facility, it will be required to return one half of these savings, not to exceed the grant amount, back to the EPA. In turn, the EPA will utilize any returned savings to help facilitate the transition of more water facilities.

A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office found that providing grants to assist water facilities to transition to safer technologies was an appropriate use of Federal funds. The costs for an individual facility to transition will vary, but the cost is very cheap when you consider the security benefits. For example, the Wilmington facility invested approximately $160,000 to transition and eliminated the risk to nearly 600,000 people. Similarly, the Blue Plains facility spent $500,000 to transition after 9-11 and eliminated the risk to 1.2 million citizens immediately. This, in my view, is a sound use of funds. And, this legislation will provide sufficient funding to transition all of our high-priority facilities throughout Nation.

Finally, I would like to point out that facilities making the decision to transition after 9-11, but before the enactment date of this legislation will be eligible to participate in the program authorized by this legislation. I have included this provision because I believe that the Federal Government should acknowledge--and promote-- local decisions that enhance our homeland security. In addition, we don't want to create a situation where water facilities wait for Federal funding, before doing the right thing and eliminating those dangerous gaseous chemicals.

Last December the 9-11 Discourse Project released its report card for the

administration and Congress on efforts to implement the 9-11 Commission recommendations. It was replete with D's and F's demonstrating that we have been going in the wrong direction with respect to homeland security. One of the most troubling findings made by the 9-11 Commission is that with respect to our Nation's critical infrastructure that ``no risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on allocations of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year away. It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually set some.'' While much remains to be done, the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006 sets an important priority for our homeland security and it affirmatively addresses it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would completely eliminate a known security risk to millions of Americans across the United States by facilitating the transfer to safer technologies from deadly toxic chemicals at our Nation's water treatment facilities.

Across our Nation, there are thousands of water treatment facilities that utilize gaseous toxic chemicals to treat drinking and wastewater. Approximately 2,850 facilities are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act because they store large quantities of these dangerous chemicals. In fact, 98 of these facilities threaten over 100,000 citizens. For example, the Fiveash Water Treatment Plant in Fort Lauderdale, FL, threatens 1,526,000 citizens. The Bachman Water Treatment in Dallas, TX, threatens up to 2 million citizens. And there are similar examples in communities throughout the Nation. If these facilities--and the 95 other facilities that threaten over 100,000 citizens--switched from the use of toxic chemicals to safer technologies that are widely used within the industry we could completely eliminate a known threat to nearly 50 million Americans.

Many facilities have already made the prudent decision to switch without intervention by the government. The Middlesex County Utilities Authority in Sayreville, NJ, switched to safer technologies and eliminated the risk to 10.7 million people. The Nottingham Water Treatment Plant in Cleveland, OH, switched and eliminated the risk to 1.1 million citizens. The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant switched and eliminated the risk to 1.7 million people. In my hometown of Wilmington, DE, the Wilmington Water Pollution Control Facility switched from using chlorine gas to liquid bleach. This commendable decision has eliminated the risk to 560,000 citizens, including the entire city of Wilmington. In fact, this facility no longer has to submit risk management plans to the Environmental Protection Agency required by the Clean Air Act because the threat has been completely eliminated. There are many other examples of facilities that have done the right thing and eliminated the use of these dangerous, gaseous chemicals.

The bottom line is that if we can eliminate a known risk, we should. The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. It will require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to do a few simple things. First, water facilities will be prioritized based upon the risk that they pose to citizens and critical infrastructure. These facilities--beginning with the most dangerous ones--will be required to submit a report on the feasibility of utilizing safer technologies and the anticipated costs to transition. If grant funding is available, the Administrator will issue a grant and order the facility to transition to the safer technology chosen by the owner of the facility. I believe that this approach will allow us to use Federal funds responsibly while reducing risk to our citizens.

Once the transition is complete, the facility will be required to track all cost-savings related to the switch, such as decreased security costs, costs saving by eliminating administrative requirements under the EPA risk management plan, lower insurance premiums, and others. If savings are ultimately realized by the facility, it will be required to return one half of these savings, not to exceed the grant amount, back to the EPA. In turn, the EPA will utilize any returned savings to help facilitate the transition of more water facilities.

A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office found that providing grants to assist water facilities to transition to safer technologies was an appropriate use of Federal funds. The costs for an individual facility to transition will vary, but the cost is very cheap when you consider the security benefits. For example, the Wilmington facility invested approximately $160,000 to transition and eliminated the risk to nearly 600,000 people. Similarly, the Blue Plains facility spent $500,000 to transition after 9-11 and eliminated the risk to 1.2 million citizens immediately. This, in my view, is a sound use of funds. And, this legislation will provide sufficient funding to transition all of our high-priority facilities throughout Nation.

Finally, I would like to point out that facilities making the decision to transition after 9-11, but before the enactment date of this legislation will be eligible to participate in the program authorized by this legislation. I have included this provision because I believe that the Federal Government should acknowledge--and promote-- local decisions that enhance our homeland security. In addition, we don't want to create a situation where water facilities wait for Federal funding, before doing the right thing and eliminating those dangerous gaseous chemicals.

Last December the 9-11 Discourse Project released its report card for the

administration and Congress on efforts to implement the 9-11 Commission recommendations. It was replete with D's and F's demonstrating that we have been going in the wrong direction with respect to homeland security. One of the most troubling findings made by the 9-11 Commission is that with respect to our Nation's critical infrastructure that ``no risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on allocations of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year away. It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually set some.'' While much remains to be done, the Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006 sets an important priority for our homeland security and it affirmatively addresses it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.